Day Fifteen: Art Overload

So today was the mack-daddy of all museums: The Louvre. I don't think I could possibly verbalize how large it is nor the number of pieces on display. If that's only 20% of their collection, than I'm not sure what kind of storage space they have. One floor of one building could of sufficed as an impressive museum, but this was truly overwhelming. The architecture and design for the Louvre itself was quite beauitful. The building was originally constructed as a fortress during The Middle Ages. Parts of the original castlet-like construction are still visible on the lowest floor. We actually accidentally ventured down there and was able to see the foundation of the 12th century building. It was later renovated into a palace in which the kings lived in. However, when Versailles was constructed- the Louvre became a place to display the royal collection. Eventually it was decided that the Louvre should be a place to display France's greatest art collection. The large arch ways, sculpted figures from the roof, and triumphant arch as an entrance all display it's grandure; however, I found the fountains and the triangle my favorite architectural component. Once we descended into the Louvre, we did three presentations before dispersing. I saw so many notable pieces that I could probably write pages on my day at the Louvre, but I'll try and keep it a managable read. First thing of note was Michealangelo's "Dying Slaves". Not only was it nice to see some work by him, but it gave me a better understanding of what inspired Rodin. Rodin thought Michelangelo had purposely left pieces undone or gave it a rough finish; however, this isn't true. As a result, I could look at these pieces and see the rough finish that must have inspired Rodin. I absolutely loved the 19th century section. I was really taken aback by the size of all of them. David's "Coronation of Napoleon" was 20 feet by 32 feet! When you walked up to it you couldn't even see the whole painting- it was just so large. It seemed that all the people were lifesize- and I knew that they were all studied portraits. I can't even imagine how someone goes about painting such a large piece of canvas. How do you keep everything in proportion? How do hide your brush strokes? It was mind boggling and amazing. I think this was one of the most impressive things I saw at the Louvre. I was really disappointed to find out that the "Death of Marat" was just a copy- I didn't realize that when I saw it. For some reason, I always found this piece particularly powerful. There's just something about Marat's position, and smallest of cut against the blood-soaked water and dark backdrop that really works. It's just so stark: between the black background and his pale skin, and the fact that he slumps over towards the viewer- it just truly shows how he was a martyr and the true tragedy of his death. I'm glad that David didn't choose to do a standard heroic portrait of him, because I think this is much more effective and emotionally stirring. What I was SUPER disappointed in was that I could not find the "Oath of the Horatti". I walked and walked and looked and looked and could not find the painting, but I was positive that it was in the Louvre. I have no idea where it was- and I raelly wanted to see the size of it and compare it to David's other work. The "Raft of the Medussa" was much larger than I imagineded. I was really impressed by Gericault's skill in foreshortening as well as the portrayal of the one figure falling off the canvas and into the viewer's space. It was quite effective. Furthermore, it was exciting to see the small boat off in the corner- something that reproductions rarely capture. This piece was also a little more hopeful compared to many other 19th century works. After seeing this piece, I was surprised that Gericault seemed to have looser brush strokes than I originally thought. I thought he was more similar to David and had near invisible marks- but with the large piece, you could see his use of insinuated details and broader strokes. This was even more exaggerated in his sketch of the scence. I loved seeing Gericault's sketches because they were little complete compositions that were almost as interesting as the final product. In fact I found Delacroix's "Death of Sardanapoles" more interesting than his final piece. I loved the thick, loose brush strokes which were near-impressionistic. It was much brighter and emotional, I felt, than the actual piece. I was a bit disappointed by the larger version because the tones were much darker than I anticipated- I thought the reds were going to be more vibrant. I also enjoyed Delacroix's "Women of Algiers"- from afar it seems like he created detailed patterns on everything from the fabric of the women's clothing to the rugs; however, once you get up close you notice everything is loose- and not as defined as you thought. I also enjoyed his "Jewish Wedding" mostly because I had read some of his journals from when he visited Morocco and I could see many of the details that he was noting in his journal. I did find this painting to be smaller than I originally thought it was going to be- I thought it was going to be the "Raft of the Medussa" size. Also, the accompanying sketches showed how carefully he was absorbing and studying everything he saw- the clothing, positions, and landscape. Overall, I thought many of the pieces in the 19th century room was much darker in tones than I had imagined. It highly contrasted the Neo-Classical work of David and his contemporaries where there were vibrant, bold, primary colors. One artist that did not abide by this sentiment was Ingres. His "Grand Odelisque" was gorgeous. I know critics originally hated his work because they didn't like his anatomical oddities- but I think it's wonderful. It adds a bit of contrast to his hyper-realist style. His ever-so-slightly exaggerated forms are interesting, and force you to wonder what is off. The "Grand Odelisque" was full of beauitful details such as feathers, beads, and various fabrics. Everything looked as if it had a realistic texture that I wanted to reach out and touch. I also love her elongated back, and her shy little glance over her shoulder. I think this glance is as alluring as the Mona Lisa's or as commanding as Olympia's. I kept coming back to this piece. I was happy when I found his other works in another room- there were several of his "Bathers". Again, I loved that there was just a little something off about the "Large Bather's" leg. The "Turkish Bath" was wonderful too- you could really see his copy and paste method (not literally) of the various figures that he had practiced and perfected over the years. I also enjoyed the unusual circular composition. It made me dizzy circling the painting seeing all the different positions, skin tones, fabrics, and details. Paul Delarouche's "La Jeune Martyre" was also hypnotizing. It reminded me of "Ophelia"- with a young woman drowning in the water, presumably at night, with a halo. It was so eerie and unsettling, yet beauitful at the same time. The soft tones of her skin compared to the dark water created a startling contrast. I also really liked Scheffer's "Francesca and Paolo"- especially since Brittini's presentation on "The Kiss" filled me in on the story. I liked how they seemed more ghostly in this piece- as if they were already in hell, but they were still beautiful and embracing while Dante looked on from the side. He looked disgustingly at them, but they seemed to entranced in each other that they didn't seem to even notice them. Their rounded positions made them seem almost abstract- as if they were becoming one person, which spoke back to the sculpture. It was just beauitfully tragic. Those were amongst my favorite paintings- I also enjoyed seeing Girodet's "Endymon", Delacroix's "Self Portrait", Durer's "Self Portrait", Van der Weyden's "Annunciation", Fragonard's "Marie-Madeleine Guimard", and Goya's "The Countess del Carpio"- to note a few. I was bummed I never got over to the Vermeer section. I did get to see another Jan Van Eyck piece, his "The Virgin of Chancellor Rolin"- which was quite small. I was very interested in his precise detail and careful symbols which make his work like an interactive "Where's Waldo?" I, as well as Brittini and Danielle, was disappointed in the piece not because of the actual piece, but because of it's placement. Though it was small, it was placed on a wall by itself- which made it seem even smaller. The green wall, which successfully made the dark, rich greens pop out of the painting, was filthy and had holes in it- which was just distracting and took away from the painting. It truly dwarfed a wonderful piece. There were so many wonderful, realistic sculptures, one of note was "Femme Draped dite Didia Clara". The three of us all couldn't stop talking about all the subltleties of the piece- the soft creases in the palm of the hand, the arches of the feet, and the varianaces in fabrics. Some of the drapery looked so deep while others looked really shallow. On the other side of the spectrum, I was excited to see the "Lady of Auxerre"- it was interesting to see the difference between the complicated details of something like "Femme Draped dite Didia Clara" to the boxy, simplistic design of a woman. It was interesting to see the evolution in art- especially when you can walk from one room to the next and see drastically different interpretations of the human form. There was also contemporary sculptures that interested me. Tony Cragg's work was mezmerising. For instance, his 2008 piece "Elbow" caught my eye. At first I thought I saw a profile, then began walking aruond it and it transformed into a completely abstract piece. The rings in the wood and the layering was very visually engaging. I loved the swelling and shrinking shapes- and the negative space that it created. It really stood up against the classical pieces that were in the same room as them. I found this quite surprising since I'm not a huge fan of abstract art and I love the classical, realistic pieces, but Cragg's work was engaging and I felt it shifted into a whole new piece from every angle I saw it from. There were also many ancient pieces of artwork that amazed me even more than the more modern pieces. We saw the Law Code of Hammurabi. My first impression was that there were a lot of laws. I didn't realize that the text spanned all the way around the tall pieces. This is similar to the Rosetta Stone where it's a piece of history and intriguing to not only look at aestetically, but to place it in its context. I mentioned to Danielle that I wish they had put an arrow near the "Eye for an Eye" law because obviously I couldn't read any of the text (or the French translations) so I was wondering in what order the laws were in. I'll just have to look it up. I was also interested in the papyrus scrolls. It's just bizarre to imagine that this was their version of paper and text and to just realize how old they really are. I'm always impressed by how well things hold up over thousands of years. Similarly, I was dumbfounded by the Colossal Vase- it was just SO huge that I couldn't imagine what it was used for and where it would be placed. Again, I'm sure if I could read French I would have figured something out about it- but it was just so large and heavy, I couldn't figure out the practical purpose of such a large vessel. I just don't know how they would have transported such a huge item- it was almost as tall as I was! In contrast to the ancient, very basic artwork- I was also taken aback by ever elaborate and lavish pieces made for royalty. There were crowns from Louis XIV's reign- as well as his famous portrait. I couldn't believe the crowns- they were gorgeous and so decorated. It was like something out of a Disney movie. We also visited Napoleon the III's apartment- which I found even more impressive than the Palace at Versailles. Between the unncessaril long dinner table, massive chandeliers, piano, hundreds of candles, detailed furniture, and number of chairs- the apartment was beautiful. I could go on forever about all the artwork I saw-there was just so much and all of it was wonderful...it was one of the greatest experiences of my life to be able to experience the Louvre. While the day mostly consisted of art-seeing, we did take a break here and there to try and refresh our eyes and minds. We took a break for lunch and dinner, but we also visited the mall and shopped a bit- which was pretty neat. We we re there until around 9pm- which means were there for about ten hours. I didn't get to see nearly everything- so I guess I'll just have to go back.

That was literally all we did today. Once we got back from the Louvre, we all crashed due to art-exhaustion. I'm kind of happy that that was the last museum that we are going to as a group. It not only ends the whole trip on a high note- but I'm museum-ed out. I never realized how exhausting this experience would be, but it really took a lot out of me.

Question of the Day: How was the Mona Lisa?

I felt like the "Mona Lisa" completely went against everything that art museums are about. I'm not quite sure why the "Mona Lisa" is so famous- I doubt people truly think it's a truly innovative painting, or that the majority know that it's mysterious because we don't know who she truly is...but for some reason, it is the most famous painting in the world. As a result, the Louvre has felt it necessary to completely distance people from the painting. It is about five feet away from a divider where people can approach it and it is behind glass in the indent on the wall. Part of the point of museums is so that you can see the piece up close, see the brush strokes, and see things that you can't see in a reproduction. The painting was small and it's distance made it even smaller. The crowd was also annoying. I ran into the same problem I had with the Rosetta Stone- nobody wants to look at the painting, they just want a photograph to prove they saw it and then move on. I was actually pushed out of the way by one person so that he could take a picture, whereas I just wanted to look at it with my own two eyes. If you ask me, I think it's highly overrated and goes against what the artworld she be about. Having said that, I did enjoy having the experience of seeing it and person and being able to say that I saw it. It's just one of those things you have to see before you die, and I'm so glad I did.